Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston



Monday, August 8, 2022


43 Republicans voted to keep insulin at $1200/mo. instead of $35. 

Soon every Republican will ask you to be outraged that gas is $5 instead of $3. 

In the GOP world, $1200 for life saving insulin in fair play but $5 for gas is an outrage. 

 Vote them all out.


skudrunner said...

The democrats took it out because they wanted to reward private equity firms, make it cheaper for the rich to buy a tesla and double the number of IRS agents to make sure the working class pay their FAIR share of taxes. Not at all good for the American taxpayer but it is a good story. How did the democrats come up with the name because it has nothing to do with reducing inflation which all of the experts say it won't do. They should have held the vote in October because then people wouldn't have time to discover this is just a buy the vote bill that rewards the rich.

Les Carpenter said...

Ignorance and corporate greed rules the now Trumpublican party.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Would the Inflation Reduction Act actually reduce inflation?

"Marc Goldwein, senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: The Inflation Reduction Act is going to help the Federal Reserve to reduce inflation. It’s not like it’s going to cut the inflation rate from 9 percent to 2 percent.

Very little [effect will be felt] in the next six months. For the most part, this isn’t a bill about 2022. This is about 2023, 2024, 2025. It’s about helping the Federal Reserve to fight against persistent inflation. It’s not gonna be bringing down the inflation rate in the month of September."

There's information on what the Inflation Reduction Act will actually do.

Where's your reference, skud?

Shaw Kenawe said...

skud: "...which all of the experts say it won't do..."

This expert disagrees with what you posted. So not "all of the experts say it wont do" is incorrect.

"Shai Akabas, director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center: I think it’s likely to have a modest downward effect on inflation, so directionally, I think it is likely to push downward on prices. But that’s unlikely to be the primary effect of the legislation, given how many specific policies there are.

Most of the impact on inflation and the broader economy from this legislation is likely to be medium-term, not felt in the immediate next few months, which is how households are thinking about inflation."

skud: "...which all of the experts say it won't do..."

Another expert disagrees with what you posted:

"Rakeen Mabud, chief economist of the Groundwork Collaborative: The first thing to say is that big public investments, like those contained in this bill, are good for the economy, full stop. So I think the real sort of standout here in the short term is bringing down health care costs. Health care costs are important because they put a massive strain on family budgets. Starting to bring those costs down will significantly ease people’s ability to live a good life and ability to participate in the economy.

But I also want to note that the long-term investments in climate and environmental justice are really, really critical. They are going to, over the medium and long term, really start to untether our dependence on really volatile fossil fuels like oil and gas, like we’re seeing right now, which are at highs and are putting a massive strain on people’s wallets.

Shaw Kenawe said...

And here's another expert that disagrees with you, skud:

"Marc Goldwein: There’s three ways that this is going to fight inflation, chiefly.

The first is, it’s going to take money out of the economy. Right now, part of the issue with inflation is there’s too much demand relative to the supply. We can argue which is at fault, but there’s a gap between demand and supply, and some of that is because we’ve been pumping a lot of extra money into the economy. This is going to take some of that money out, both by taxing it and by spending less than we otherwise would on prescription drugs. That mostly starts later in the budget window; there’s not a lot of it happening the first couple of years. There’s some in the first year and second year, and it’s still helpful.

The second mechanism is through regulatory reforms. [Both] within the package, like opening up leasing lands, [and] in sidecar bills agreed to in combination with this bill that are going to fast-track permitting, allow for pipelines, some more drilling, and stuff like that. That’s going to tend to increase supply and availability of energy, reduce cost, and actually put downward pressure on inflation."

Anonymous said...

Taxing things that cause global warming might not be pleasant, but the effects of global warming would be a lot less pleasant. Having people with money (business owners and stock owners) pay a bit more in taxes sounds like a reasonable idea to me, too, since they mostly pay at lower rates than poorer folks. Increasing the IRS budget will help reduce tax cheating by providing more funding for tax enforcement, but maybe you like cheating on income taxes.
So in sum, the bill embodies a lot of good ideas.

Ray Cranston said...

Hey skud, 59% of Americans don't think the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share of taxes.

Trump added $7.8 trillion to the debt. I didn’t hear you complaining about that?

Oh, and this bill only taxes the rich, and actually reduces the debt by $300 billion.

GOP = cut taxes and spend just as much, resulting in record deficits, leaving the deficits and other messes as usual for Democrats to clean up.

Trump's only legislation was to give billionaires more money. Because those are his people and it lines his own pockets. Republicans don't mind spending American's money if it is in such a way that will come back to them an their donors.

Instead of spending, Democrats are investing in you, in me, in the environment. This money won't come back to them in the form of cold hard cash like the billionaire money will. This money will come back to all of us in a myriad of ways. When you spend money on your house (roof, foundation, yard or whatever) yes, it costs you money, but it is money well spent to ensure you have a home that is safe for everyone, not just your billionaire cronies.

skudrunner said...

Ms. Shaw,
Thank you for providing additional support for my statement on little to no reduction of inflation. You need to include the CBO and Bernie Sanders in those who have said the same thing.
Why don't the democrats call it what it is instead of hiding behind a lie. It is a giveaway to appease the green movement, provide incentives for the rich to buy more electric vehicles at 60+ thousand dollars and increase IRS activity of people making less than 70K a year.

Ray, corporations treat taxes like a COG. Pass it along because if anyone thinks they will just absorb the increase they need to have an awakening to realty.

The democrats voted against law enforcement, securing a border and providing relief to the middle class. They voted for increasing taxes, spending on the rich and making sure the middle class pays their fair share. Why didn't they vote to put 80 billion into law enforcement which helps everyone instead of putting it into the IRS so they can go after all those middle class working taxpayers. It is ironic that when the Southern states are over run, the federal government says there is no problem but as soon as Texas sends some North, it is a real problem. Can any group be more hypercritical than the democrats. I didn't hear the mayor of NYC and DC scream when the administration was flying those illegals to NY. Guess making them ride a bus was unjust.

Shaw Kenawe said...

The legislation is still 200% more than Trump ever passed during his benighted presidency. All he did was give the 1% a permanent tax break which piled onto the deficit.

But forget that.

The big news tonight is that the Feds have raided Trump's Mar-a-Largo! They do this only when they're sure there's criminal reasons for it!

Imagine that! A former POTUS being raided by the FBI! Everything else pales with this news!